netdev - Re: [PATCH mlx5-next] RDMA/mlx5: Enforce same type port association for multiport RoCE

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <2ce19a4c-be46-409e-95b7-49a7a0fce3ed@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2024 15:03:39 +0100
From: Mateusz Polchlopek <mateusz.polchlopek@...el.com>
To: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
CC: Patrisious Haddad <phaddad@...dia.com>, Daniel Jurgens
	<danielj@...lanox.com>, <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>, Mark Bloch
	<mbloch@...dia.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Parav Pandit
	<parav@...lanox.com>, Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>, Tariq Toukan
	<tariqt@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH mlx5-next] RDMA/mlx5: Enforce same type port association
 for multiport RoCE



On 12/3/2024 2:45 PM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> From: Patrisious Haddad <phaddad@...dia.com>
> 
> Different core device types such as PFs and VFs shouldn't be affiliated
> together since they have different capabilities, fix that by enforcing
> type check before doing the affiliation.
> 
> Fixes: 32f69e4be269 ("{net, IB}/mlx5: Manage port association for multiport RoCE")
> Reviewed-by: Mark Bloch <mbloch@...dia.com>
> Signed-off-by: Patrisious Haddad <phaddad@...dia.com>
> Signed-off-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...dia.com>
> ---
>   drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/main.c | 6 ++++--
>   include/linux/mlx5/driver.h       | 6 ++++++
>   2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/main.c b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/main.c
> index bc7930d0c564..c2314797afc9 100644
> --- a/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/main.c
> +++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/mlx5/main.c
> @@ -3639,7 +3639,8 @@ static int mlx5_ib_init_multiport_master(struct mlx5_ib_dev *dev)
>   		list_for_each_entry(mpi, &mlx5_ib_unaffiliated_port_list,
>   				    list) {
>   			if (dev->sys_image_guid == mpi->sys_image_guid &&
> -			    (mlx5_core_native_port_num(mpi->mdev) - 1) == i) {
> +			    (mlx5_core_native_port_num(mpi->mdev) - 1) == i &&
> +			    mlx5_core_same_coredev_type(dev->mdev, mpi->mdev)) {
>   				bound = mlx5_ib_bind_slave_port(dev, mpi);
>   			}
>   
> @@ -4785,7 +4786,8 @@ static int mlx5r_mp_probe(struct auxiliary_device *adev,
>   
>   	mutex_lock(&mlx5_ib_multiport_mutex);
>   	list_for_each_entry(dev, &mlx5_ib_dev_list, ib_dev_list) {
> -		if (dev->sys_image_guid == mpi->sys_image_guid)
> +		if (dev->sys_image_guid == mpi->sys_image_guid &&
> +		    mlx5_core_same_coredev_type(dev->mdev, mpi->mdev))
>   			bound = mlx5_ib_bind_slave_port(dev, mpi);
>   
>   		if (bound) {
> diff --git a/include/linux/mlx5/driver.h b/include/linux/mlx5/driver.h
> index fc7e6153b73d..4f9e6f6dbaab 100644
> --- a/include/linux/mlx5/driver.h
> +++ b/include/linux/mlx5/driver.h
> @@ -1202,6 +1202,12 @@ static inline bool mlx5_core_is_vf(const struct mlx5_core_dev *dev)
>   	return dev->coredev_type == MLX5_COREDEV_VF;
>   }
>   
> +static inline bool mlx5_core_same_coredev_type(const struct mlx5_core_dev *dev1,
> +					       const struct mlx5_core_dev *dev2)
> +{
> +	return dev1->coredev_type == dev2->coredev_type;
> +}
> +
>   static inline bool mlx5_core_is_ecpf(const struct mlx5_core_dev *dev)
>   {
>   	return dev->caps.embedded_cpu;

Hmmm.. Looks good to me

Reviewed-by: Mateusz Polchlopek <mateusz.polchlopek@...el.com>